JURY NULLIFICATION
EACH PERSON ON A JURY HAS THE POWER TO VOTE "NOT GUILTY" IN ANY
CRIMINAL CASE EVEN IF IT IS OBVIOUS THE DEFENDANT BROKE THE LAW (PENAL
CODE). THIS TREMENDOUS "POWER" PERMITS YOU, AS A JUROR, TO "NULLIFY" OR
"NEUTRALIZE" A LAW WHICH IS IN YOUR OPINION "BAD". YOU MAY EXERCISE THIS
POWER DESPITE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED OR THE JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU. NO
JUDGE WILL EVER INSTRUCT YOU, HOWEVER, THAT YOU HAVE THIS POWER TO NULLIFY
A BAD LAW BY VOTING "NOT GUILTY"--LEGAL TRADITION ASSUMES THAT EACH JUROR
KNOWS OF THIS POWER BUT SHOULD NOT BE TOLD OF IT AS IT IS NOT A RIGHT.
THE "POWER" EXISTS
"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old
rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on
questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be
observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable
distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon
yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact
in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no
doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court:
For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of
facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the courts are the best
judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of
decision." [CHARGE TO THE JURY BY THE 1ST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT, JOHN JAY, IN GEORGIA v. BRAILSFORD, 3 DALL 1, Pg.4 (1794). THIS JURY
INSTRUCTION OCCURRED IN A CIVIL (NOT CRIMINAL) CASE].
* * * * *
"'The verdict, therefore, stands conclusive and unquestionable, in
point both of law and fact. In a certain limited sense, therefore, it may
be said that the jury have a power and a legal right to pass upon both the
law and the fact.'" [CHIEF JUSTICE SHAW (STATE) QUOTED IN SPARF v. U.S.,
156 US 51, Pg.80, 15 Sup.Ct. 273, Pg.285 (1895)].
* * * * *
"The judge cannot direct [DEMAND] a verdict it is true [FROM THE
JURY], and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of
both law and facts." [U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HOLMES IN HORNING v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 254 US 135, Pg.138 (1920)].
* * * * *
"In criminal cases juries remained the judges of both law and fact for
approximately fifty years after the Revolution. However, the judges in
America, just as in England after the Revolution of 1688, gradually
asserted themselves increasingly through their instructions on the law. We
recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit,
even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and
contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we
adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot
search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If
the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust,
or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for
any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power
to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." [U.S. APPELLATE
COURT IN U.S. v. MOYLAN, 417 F2d 1002, Pg.1006 (1969); CERT DENIED IN 397
US 910].
* * * * *
"The existence of an unreviewable and unreversible power in the jury,
to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial
judge, has for many years co-existed with legal practice and precedent
upholding instructions to the jury that they are required to follow the
JURY NULLIFICATION - PAGE 1 OF 2
instructions of the court on all matters of law. There were different
soundings in colonial days and the early days of our Republic. We are aware
of the number and variety of expressions at that time from respected
sources--John Adams; Alexander Hamilton; prominent judges--that jurors had
a duty to find a verdict according to their own conscience, though in
opposition to the direction of the court; that their power signified a
right; that they were judges both of law and of fact in a criminal case,
and not bound by the opinion of the court." [U.S. APPELLATE COURT IN U.S.
v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F2d 1113, Pg.1132 (1972)].
BUT DON'T TELL THE JURY
"The way the jury operates may be radically altered if there is
alteration in the way it is told to operate. The jury knows well enough
that its prerogative is not limited to the choices articulated in the
formal instructions of the court. [...] Law is a system, and it is also a
language, with secondary meanings that may be unrecorded yet are part of
its life. [...] In the last analysis, our rejection of the request for jury
nullification doctrine [IN THE FORM OF AN INSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE JURY BY
THE TRIAL JUDGE] is a recognition that there are times when logic is not
the only or even best guide to sound conduct of government. [...] The fact
that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative
[NULLIFICATION], and approval of its existence as a 'necessary counter to
case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors,' does not establish as an
imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power."
[U.S. APPELLATE COURT IN UNITED STATES v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F2d 1113, Pg.1135-
1136 (1972)].
CONCLUSION
IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE EACH JUROR CAN VOTE "NOT GUILTY" HONESTLY AND
WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL BY ANYONE. THE JURY, IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE, ACTS AS
THE 4TH AND SUPREME BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT WHOSE APPROVAL ONE OF ITS
OWN, ONE OF THE "PEOPLE", MAY NOT BE PUNISHED.
SUGGESTION
IF SOMEONE IS PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO HAVE WILFULLY OR
INTENTIONALLY HURT OR DESTROYED SOMEONE OR THEIR PROPERTY--VOTE "GUILTY".
REMEMBER, HOWEVER, EACH ACCUSED PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
BUT, IF THE ACCUSED HAS HURT NO ONE OR THEIR PROPERTY OR HAS DONE SO
ONLY BY ACCIDENT--VOTE "NOT GUILTY" IF YOU THINK THE LAW IS A BAD LAW.
IN THIS WAY "WE THE PEOPLE" WILL BE TELLING OUR GOVERNMENT THAT WE
WILL SUPPORT PROSECUTIONS IN WHICH A MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY HAS BEEN
DELIBERATELY HURT OR WRONGED BUT THAT WE WILL NOT PERMIT PROSECUTIONS BASED
ON BAD LAWS. PROSECUTORS WILL NOT BRING PROSECUTIONS THEY KNOW LOCAL JURYS
WILL NOT SUPPORT. REMEMBER, IT TAKES ONLY ONE JUROR TO MAKE A "HUNG JURY".
BE AWARE THAT PROSECUTORS, TO IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES OF SCORING A WIN, WILL
LIKELY "DISQUALIFY" YOU FOR JURY DUTY IF THEY LEARN YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF
JURY NULLIFICATION. PLEASE PASS THIS INFORMATION ALONG TO YOUR FRIENDS AND
NEIGHBORS. GET ON THOSE JURYS. LOVE YOUR COUNTRY--BUT KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT
IN CHECK.
JURY NULLIFICATION - PAGE 2 OF 2